 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge
editThis probably does need a merge (or improvement) ... but I reverted it as caught up in other merges that were not properly attributed. If I have time I do a merge proposal but I'd need to check it out first. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC) NB: While I've added two refs to clear the unref issue at I don't like to leave an article in that state it does not mean I would oppose a merge. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Merge or delete, it really in not all that notable in its own right.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not really compatible with merge with Airbus Defence and Space and keep as a redirect, not notable enough for its own page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC) comment at AfD. I argue it was indeed most notable in its day, and once notable always notable. However there are two target options, Airbus Defence and Space and Airbus Military, so its likely the discussion of a wider discussion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- That will be because I am in two minds over even having a merge (what is there to merge?). I also note that Airbus military is also not muich more then a stub.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- The problems arise from the merges into Airbus Defence and Space of Astrium, Airbus Military, and Euroflag. The was no discussion for these merges, none were properly attributed by the person doing the merge but Euroflag was attributed by someone else later. I was concerned, rightly or wrongly, Astrium should be been pre-discussed because it is at least of mid-importance and correct structure is being maintained. Leaving a mad merge in place for a length of time is bad so all were backed out by me. Good citizen I am seeing Euroflag unreferenced I added the necessary, which may or may not be useful. A properly done redirect noting with history and printworthy and possibly categories would also likely be acceptable to me. of Euroflag. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Euroflag was nothing to do with Airbus, they contracted them to take over the production and development. Not all participants were related to the Airbus Group so to merge would not seem reasonable. Just need to improve this article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- That will be because I am in two minds over even having a merge (what is there to merge?). I also note that Airbus military is also not muich more then a stub.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not really compatible with merge with Airbus Defence and Space and keep as a redirect, not notable enough for its own page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC) comment at AfD. I argue it was indeed most notable in its day, and once notable always notable. However there are two target options, Airbus Defence and Space and Airbus Military, so its likely the discussion of a wider discussion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Per closers comment on the 20 September 2019 AfD I may well have converted this to a redirect this morning however I can see this might be controversial so I will choose to leave it. I may attempt to improve the article a little, this does not indicate my position on any formal merge discussion; and I think at the moment I am undecided. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)